Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 385,814 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| No. 10 | 
May 07, 2009, 05:14 PM
 Re: ANA membership?- INA has done great things for IL
Hello Everyone,
I feel the need to provide my two cents and interject among the numerous negative comments about INA / ANA here- this is a long post but addresses numerous issues brought up.
I joined INA/ANA upon graduation from nursing school. The Illinois Nurses Association has done more to protect nursing practice in Illinois than any other nursing association. INA is one of very few organizations that has a full time lobbyist, her name is Sue Clark, and she herself a registered nurse, working at the Illlinois State Capitol everyday lobbying for our interests as Registered Nurses in Illinois. Sue Clark works as a contract lobbyist for ISAPN and IANA. Jolie-
the Illinois Nurse is sent to every licensed RN in Illinois- whether or not they are a member, as a courtesy of the organization. You highlighted the recent article on CNA II legislation. Actually the push for CNA II legislation was by the Long Term Care lobbying group- Life Services Network. INA and it's Government Relations Committee fought hard, as a result the bill died in committee. I applaud you for writing letters to legislators on your own- not every nurse has the time or interest in doing that however, and that is why INA has a government relations committee and contract lobbyist that does that work.
"The INA seems to have no desire or effectiveness in protecting nurses' interests, but rather "getting along" with other organizations and entities that answer to the hospital and nursing home industries."
That statement is completely false- whether it is INA opposing a CNA II pilot program- which Long Term Care very much would love to see or INA opposing Ratio Legislation -which the California Nurses Associaton/NNOC advocates for INA works to protect nursing in Illinois. INA does sit down at the bargaining table with the physicians, hospital association etc to get things done. If INA had not worked with other groups- Advanced Practice Nursing would not have become a reality, and we'd probably still be fighting today for that.
INA and the work of other nurses across Illinois brought Illinois advanced practice nursing in 1997. Yes, IL was the last state but look at the enviornment- Chicago is home to the American Medical Association- often, the physicians have more money, and more members so who are state legislators going to listen to? However, I"m proud to say many other states have "med techs" individuals in long term care whose sole purpose it is to administer medications in long term care. Medication administration is a complex nursing assessment- not just a task to be delegated to lesser qualified individuals TurnLeftSide-
Regarding other states withdrawing from ANA- that is largely due to debates and differences of opinion on labor issues. INA remains affiliated with ANA and the organization strongly values it's association with ANA. In some states where the state association "dissafiliated" from ANA, many nurses who are members of their respective state association probably aren't even aware. ANA president Rebecca Patton highlighted one state as an example- the vote to dissafiliate occured with a membership meeting where less than 100 members were present- a very small proportion of the membership actually voted for the dissaffiliation. I was at the ANA house of delegates in 2008- Things got ugly, I believe the Michigan Delegation physically walked out of the house of delegates TraumaRUS
I'm glad to hear that you're active in ISAPN, however I think you should consider joining INA. While ISAPN addressess only advanced practice issues, INA also addressess those issues, and INA has always been at the forefront of nursing practice in Illinois. I'd say that the value of the money I spend on INA is worth it's weight. Like I mentioned before INA was the responsible body for securing advanced practice in Illinois. This occured through lobbying by staff nurses, nurse administrators and a coalition of individuals ISAPN was founded about 4 years later after APN licensure became a reality. INA speaks for all nurses in Illinois no matter their practice role- bedside nurse, APN, educator etc.
Regarding the California Nurses Association/NNOC. Many years ago, in 1995 the california Constituent Association left ANA- I'm not sure the circumstances, I think that is an interesting research topic. Since then many other states have followed suit. Apparently, in nursing we can't all play in the same sandbox- which I think is really to our detriment and it speaks about the challenges our profession faces in the 21st century.
As long as we fight amongst ourselves in nursing- in the words of Lincoln- "A house divided against itself cannot stand." We may have some philosophical differences of opinion, however in the words of an early ANA leader "To Advance We Must Unite"
 | | Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 11 |
May 07, 2009, 05:29 PM
Re: ANA membership?
Dan,
I appreciate your post. You are clearly very well informed and well-spoken, but my experiences speak loudly to me and they do not favor the INA/ANA.
I have chosen to "unite" with other professional organizations that support nursing in ways that are much more meaningful, useful and influential to my daily practice. They are nursing specialty organizations.
There are countless options for professional affiliations. ANA isn't the only game in town. Nor is it the most effective, in my opinion.
| | No. 12 |
May 07, 2009, 09:42 PM
Re: ANA membership?
I am only an ANA member because they offered the grad students a free membership.
I pay for AACN membership (and the Aussie equivalent) and AAHFN membership.
| | No. 14 |
May 11, 2009, 07:12 PM
Re: ANA membership? Originally Posted by beejaycee  Would a new attorney not join the American Bar Association? Would a new doctor not join the AMA? No, these lobbying groups have virtually 100% membership.
I understand your point, but are you sure about that? Info seems to place ABA membership at 50% and AMA membership below 20%...and both of these agencies are equally, if not more controversial than the ANA. Yet only about 10% of nurses join the ANA. It is our strongest and largest representing (& lobbying) organization and yet 9 out of 10 nurses don't join. Read this thread.
Again, sorry for the hijack! We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
I avoided the ANA because of their overt political bias in spite of their claims of bipartisanship. For example, in their endorsements for the 2008 election cycle, only 7% were Republicans. Now, I'm no Republican, but that hardly looks bipartisan to me. And reviewing their endorsements, the only way a Republican got an endorsement was if they were up to their arses in some kind of nursing legislation and had "I  RN's" tattooed just above the waterline. Some of the Dem endorsements were simply because the candidate expressed a "hope" to be involved in nursing issues....phuleease.
Another reason I stayed away was because of their labor affiliations. Now that has changed, but their overall stance is not acceptable to me. I don't feel like the ANA is an agency that is seeking to serve the interests of RN's, but instead is a tool for a select few RN's to promote themselves, and that the ANA serves more to corral and categorize RN's instead of functioning effectively to promote nursing as a profession.
Instead of trying to direct national healthcare policy, they need to return to their membership...focus on building it back up and then listening to their new members. They also need to find out what makes other associations successful...and it's by these two methods; high standards for education (I know, the deadly ADN/BSN discussion), and lobbying for legislative protection and expansion for nursing practice at all levels, even if it PO's the physicians. The ANA wiggles their butt in that direction on occasion, but they always quickly retreat.
Maybe they can apply for bailout money and hire Haley Barbour and Bill Clinton to be their powerful lobbyist voice in DC.
| | No. 16 |
May 12, 2009, 03:20 PM
Re: ANA membership? Originally Posted by nicurn001 H & S , agreed with your post above , but I guess ANA's wish to be bipartisan is hard to fulfill . As it is difficult to find moderate republicans , in positions of power who would support nurses , rather than the Healthcare industry . Leaving the ANA the choice with endorsing Democrats , or being Apolitical , an unsustainable positon for a group who wishes to lobby for a legislation . 
Uh...why do they have to be moderate republicans? Conservatives care about nurses! Liberals care about nurses! I have to say...I'm just a tad insulted! 
And the solution is to endorse NO ONE. They can be apolitical and still lobby congress, and successful lobbyist groups work both sides of the aisle, not just one, and that might be the problem with the ANA; they picked a team, and it's not working for them.
The hospital I work for has a apolitical gov't affairs office that lobbys the state assembly, and they don't endorse ANYONE! They engage both sides of the aisle and make them aware of the challenges we face, and lobby both sides to act to the benefit of our interests...
| | No. 17 |
May 12, 2009, 05:20 PM
Re: ANA membership?
They would , with a high degree of probability , have to be moderate republicans , as the conservatives would be unlikely to want to be assosicated with a group that , by your definition ( in post 14 ) were partisan ( because of their 93 % support of democrats ). So I don't think , you have cause to feel insulted , though if you are , that is your choice .
The ANA can lobby both sides of the aisle , but only garner the support of enough republicans , that only 7% of their funding goes to Republicans .If the ANA changed it's stances to gain more conservative support it would have to either compromise it's principals or dilute it's legislative agenda ( if the conservatives supported these , they would already be onboard , and not worried about your percieved lack of bipartisanship ) to such a degree it would no longer achieve their desires .
It is your view , that your hospitals government affairs office is apolitical ( is this office stand alone , or part of the hospitals affiliation with an external assosciation? ),just by approaching bothsides of the aisle doesn't make you apolitical .
As many on this forum would argue what is best for the Hospital is not always best for the staff or patients .
| | No. 18 |
May 12, 2009, 05:47 PM
Re: ANA membership? Originally Posted by nicurn001 They would , with a high degree of probability , have to be moderate republicans , as the conservatives would be unlikely to want to be assosicated with a group that , by your definition ( in post 14 ) were partisan ( because of their 93 % support of democrats ). So I don't think , you have cause to feel insulted , though if you are , that is your choice..
LOL...you are missing the point of lobbying. The ANA is supposed to be reaching out on behalf of nurses, not sitting around waiting to be courted. The ANA reached out to the 100% of the politicians they supported, but they CHOSE an overwhelming number of democrats...it wasn't the democrats who chose them. And the side-point is this; they can't then claim to be bipartisan. The ANA can lobby both sides of the aisle , but only garner the support of enough republicans , that only 7% of their funding goes to Republicans .If the ANA changed it's stances to gain more conservative support it would have to either compromise it's principals or dilute it's legislative agenda ( if the conservatives supported these , they would already be onboard , and not worried about your percieved lack of bipartisanship ) to such a degree it would no longer achieve their desires.
This is completely wrong...that is not how a lobbying functions, but it is possible that the ANA thinks the same way you do, and that is why they are a consumate failure. It's not about the ANA making it's own ideals match up to those of a few politicians, it's supposed to be about taking their own ideals and showing them to influential leaders (regardless their persuasion), and convincing them to act on the behalf of their constituents.
Otherwise, what I seem to be reading is some approval of impropriety where the ANA should only affiliate with politicians who can be 'bought.'  It is your view , that your hospitals government affairs office is apolitical ( is this office stand alone , or part of the hospitals affiliation with an external assosciation? ),just by approaching bothsides of the aisle doesn't make you apolitical .
As many on this forum would argue what is best for the Hospital is not always best for the staff or patients
It is my EXPERIENCE that they are apolitical. I have assisted them with designing a report for the state assembly. Our gov't affairs office is transparent and blatantly apolitical; they pursue all avenues to promote their position and intention, and don't align themselves with one side or another...unlike the ANA.
The very act of involving both parties is by it's very function nothing else except bipartisan.
And whatever vague comment you are making about the hospital could equally be applied to the ANA.
| | No. 19 |
May 15, 2009, 02:18 PM
Re: ANA membership? Originally Posted by Honnête et Sérieux LOL...you are missing the point of lobbying. The ANA is supposed to be reaching out on behalf of nurses , not sitting around waiting to be courted I'm sure the ANA would argue they did the former rather than the latter. The ANA reached out to the 100% of the politicians they supported , but they CHOSE an overwhelming number of democrats...it wasn't the democrats who chose them I'm sure you will correct me upon this , if I misunderstand the nuances of lobbying , but I thought a lobbying group contacts all interested parties , then having identified those who supports its cause / legislation , support them 100% , whilst continuing to try to persuade their opponents , to change their response to one of support for cause / legislation. And the side-point is this; they can't then claim to be bipartisan. Yes they can , if they have tried to garner support from both sides of the aisle , and as in this case , although they only obtained 7% support from republicans , they still have support from both sides of the aisle , doesn't that meet the criteria for being bipartisan ?,or do you have a different definition for what being bipartisan means ?
This is completely wrong...that is not how a lobbying functions, but it is possible that the ANA thinks the same way you do, and that is why they are a consumate failure. It's not about the ANA making it's own ideals match up to those of a few politicians, it's supposed to be about taking their own ideals and showing them to influential leaders ( most of whom are either politicians or those who can influence politicians , so as to advance a particular cause or legislative agenda ) (regardless their persuasion), and convincing them to act on the behalf of their constituents.
Otherwise, what I seem to be reading is some approval of impropriety where the ANA should only affiliate with politicians who can be 'bought.' Looking back at that para I think this quote " that only 7% of their funding goes to Republicans " should read ,that only 7% of their support comes from Republicans .( thanks for pointing out the appearance of approval of impropriety , something I believe neither of us would condone ) .
It is my EXPERIENCE that they are apolitical. I have assisted them with designing a report for the state assembly. Our gov't affairs office is transparent and blatantly apolitical; they pursue all avenues to promote their position and intention, and don't align themselves with one side or another...unlike the ANA. Nothing you say here , is other than your opinion ( even if that opinion is based upon experience , I seem to recollect in other threads , you have often pointed out to others , the error of using personal opinion to validate their arguements ) , so as I have no way of gaining an independant factual assesment of whether or not your hospitals government affairs office is indeed apolitical , I am perfectly entitled to challenge your assertion that it is apolitical.
The very act of involving both parties is by it's very function nothing else except bipartisan .( IMHO , I think here you answer my question above , confirming that by this definition the ANA is bipartisan )
And whatever vague comment you are making about the hospital could equally be applied to the ANA True. 
Just for transparency I have no affiliation with the ANA .
|
| 110 members
1,382 guests 1,492
| 8 | | | 7 | | | 14 | | | 23 | | | 6 | | | 22 | | | 63 | | | 89 | | | 12 | | | 16 | |
| 7 | | | 0 | | | 7 | | | 15 | | | 11 | | | 13 | | | 16 | | | 29 | | | 14 | | | 16 | | | 23 | | | 17 | | | 23 | | | 10 | | | 6 | |
|
Nursing News